Everyoane is welcome subscribe free click HERE .
Join our wiki and also our groups for this Ning based on new tehnologies in education
Follow also on twiter @web20education , Use hastag #edtech20
On facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Web-20-and-new-tehnologies-in-education-still-2010/103495893021586 -becone a fan
On Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2887203&trk=myg_ugrp_ovr
On google wave web20 , semantic web 3.0 and newtechnologies in education2010
On learncentral - http://www.learncentral.org/group/50198/2010-group-teachers-and-researcers-who-use-tools-and-applications-web-20-mlearning-elear

I’ll admit that there aren’t many topics I’m more passionate about than interactive whiteboards in the classroom.

Seen as the first step towards “21st century teaching and learning,” schools and districts run out and spend thousands of dollars on these gizmos, hanging them on walls and showing them off like proud hens that just laid the golden instructional egg.

I gave mine away last summer. After about a year’s worth of experimenting, I determined that it was basically useless.

Sure, my students thought it was nifty, but it didn’t make teaching my required curriculum any easier. I probably crafted two or three neat lessons with it, but there was nothing unique about those activities. I could have easily put together similar lessons using the computer stations I already have in my room and any number of free online tools.

A couple of weeks ago, when I learned of a Twitter Ed Chat about interactive whiteboards, I hurried right over. Even after an appliance meltdown, a minor flood, and a two-hour trip to the laundromat, there was no way I was going to let a conversation about whiteboards slip away.

Thankfully, there was a lot of wisdom in the Ed Chat room. Few people spent any meaningful time praising the instructional goodness of IWBs, and the majority of participants recognized that without time and training, they quickly become nothing more than really expensive overhead projectors.

I’d go even farther, though. I’m willing to argue that even with time and training, interactive whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase. They do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning. Heck, even whiteboard companies market them as a bridging technology, designed to replicate traditional instructional practices (make presentations, give notes, deliver lectures) in an attempt to move digital teacher-dinosaurs into the light. I ask you: Do we really want to spend thousands of dollars on a tool that makes stand-and-deliver instruction easier?

My biggest IWB beef, though, is that they are poorly aligned with the vision of instruction that most people claim to believe in. Ask a principal what the best classrooms look like and she’s likely to say something like this:

“In the best classrooms, students are involved in creating knowledge together. They’re studying topics, designing experiments, collaborating with peers, and challenging one another’s preconceived notions. While the teacher is always present to guide and to facilitate, the students are empowered to discover and to grow independently.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? If we could turn control of learning over to students, we’d probably see motivation and academic growth levels rise all at once. Classrooms would become innovative places that students were drawn to instead of the snooze palaces that they seem to be for so many kids today.

But if those are the outcomes we most desire, then why are we wasting money on interactive whiteboards—tools that do little to promote independent discovery and collaborative work? Sure, you could argue that when used as an instructional center, whiteboards become more interactive, but that is one really expensive center, don’t you think?

I’m also peeved because schools rarely have any kind of system in place to evaluate the impact that whiteboards are having on instruction. We spend heaping piles of cash collecting whiz-bang gadgets and then completely fail to reflect on whether or not they have helped us achieve the outcomes we most desire. Isn’t that called hoarding?

Frankly, it seems like most school leaders don’t really care whether IWBs change instruction in meaningful ways in their school’s classrooms. Why? Because whiteboards aren’t an instructional tool in their eyes. They’re a PR tool—a tangible representation of innovation that can be shown off to supervisors and parents alike. Heaven forbid that you run a school without whiteboards if your colleagues down the street have taken a big bite of this 21st century fruit. You’ll look like a hayseed at the next PTA meeting, won’t you?

I think Sylvia Martinez, who writes at Generation Yes, said it best: “You can’t buy change. It’s a process, not a purchase. The right shopping list won’t change education.”

Most of the time, interactive whiteboard programs are, in fact, nothing more than vain attempts to buy change. Rarely paired with a clear vision of the classrooms we’d like to see, a set of tangible objectives that can be measured, or any systematic attempts to evaluate outcomes, these high-priced contraptions are sad examples of the careless decision-making and waste that are crippling some of our schools and systems.

Bill Ferriter teaches 6th graders in the Wake County (NC) Public Schools. A former North Carolina regional teacher of the year, he writes a monthly column on technology integration for Educational Leadership magazine and is co-author of Building a Professional Learning Community at Work: A Guide to the First Year. He blogs at The Tempered Radical.

"... even whiteboard companies market them as a bridging technology, designed to replicate traditional instructional practices (make presentations, give notes, deliver lectures) in an attempt to move digital teacher-dinosaurs into the light..."

Brilliant piece, Bill. But be prepared for a dump-truck's worth of irate pushback (actually, I didn't see much of that on the Tempered Radical--but that's a pretty sophisticated techie audience over there). Gary Stager calls the IWB effect "teacher as priest"--the giver of all wisdom.

I'm delighted to see your perspective, written after some significant experience in using an IWB--most people make up their minds about them after seeing a demo, rather than actually going steady with one in a classroom full of 6th graders. They may be a convenient substitute for conventional whiteboards/overhead projectors, but they work best in a direct-instruction mode.

I think your best point, however, is that in a time when resources have been slashed to the bone, school districts will cut other common supplies and services to get IWBs, thinking they're the best possible use of funds. Not.

I passionately believe that direct instruction must be central to education. If teachers don't have knowledge, understanding and skills to impart, they should find another job. Good direct instruction has nothing to do with merely delivering a lecture: it entails constant questioning and discussion, so that student's interest is engaged, and that new learning connects with existing knowledge. This is probably not all that different from Mr Ferriter's vision of teaching, but I do get very annoyed when anyone trots out--however obliquely--that nauseating ed school nostrum about sages on stages and guides on sides.

However, most of the top teachers I know have very little time for IWBs. Although technology undoubtedly can bring benefits to the classroom, the vast majority of ICT being forced on schools is pointless expenditure at best. As educational publishers, we have considered putting our material into an electronic format, but the feedback we got from teachers was unanimously negative. Books, like ordinary whiteboards, are completely reliable--you don't have to worry about a malfunction leaving you with 30 restless kids sniggering at your discomfort.

We tried hard to work with new IWB; streaming off proven math sites, walking students through basic algebra - and ended up frustrated. Administrators, though, demanded we incorporate IWBs into daily instruction. The district wanted in on the "cutting edge" hysteria, the systems were paid for and parents were wowed over the requisite dog and pony shows.Math teachers quietly rebelled and returned to the grease pen and overhead projectors. The immediate effect was two-fold: Students became more engaged, and the math teachers suffered negative observations. To wit: We were not using our technology properly and thus clearly not team players. The experienced, long-tenured teachers told the administrators to go fish, and I was exiled the next year to a remediation class. The abuse, cost and misuse of computers and its expensive off-spring (e.g. IWBs) has chased a lot of good teachers into the swamps.

The High School I teach at has now furnished most of our classrooms with interactive whiteboards (Promethean boards). The result.....technology that we need training for and are not provided. Sure some of my peers have self-taught themselves, but most of us have only just scratched the surface with it's functions and usefulness.

I will say this, they are expensive but for teachers that really enjoy this technology, it has increased their energy and morale. This of course benefits students.

For me personally, I hooked my cable up to it and have an excellent AV source for internet and cable!

I am one of those teachers who has had minimal training for use of the new Smartboard I was given this year. At the end of last school year, the special education cooperative for which I work was given a huge amount of money from the state. We were told to make a "wish list" of items we wanted to see in our classrooms, with the underlying theme of technology being the driving force. The three of us working at the school received Smartboards and laptops. We had a short training session on the use of the Smartboard, but I am learning by trial and error.

A colleague in 6th grade uses hers all the time. She plans activites for the students to do while she is teaching another group. She is a master of creativity and individualized learning, and while some are doing an interactive math or social studies practice session at the Smartboard, other groups are working at their desks. They then trade off and the entire group uses the Smartboard to reinforce the lesson.

I disagree that they are a waste of money, but ONLY IF teachers take the time to learn to use them effectively. I have been forcing myself to use mine every day for at least a few minutes in each class so that I can become familiar with it. The math teachers use them a lot for interactive teaching aids, although if they want the entire class to work at the same time, individual whiteboards at each desk (very low tech!) work just as well.

My biggest fear is that society simply wants to throw money at a problem, or afix blame to a tangible, visible person or program for the lack of motivation and growth seen in our students. The IWB may not solve the problem of continued student failure, but I believe that it is a tool which can be useful in snagging their attention long enough for us to even teach them something!

It's funny because my keeping up with the Joneses attitude makes me jealous of those that have them in my building, but I have said to many colleagues, if they are only used as glorified worksheets and fancy multiple choice tests (activotes), the quality of educating the children is not enhanced.

Children learn best in an engaging, pro-social, hands-on atmosphere where they are doing meaningful work. When I see classes sitting in front of a whiteboard as passive learners, it is no better than a blackboard.

IWB's are like any tool, sometimes it is of value, sometimes not so much. I teach accounting & computer programming at the 11th-12th grade level. I use it extensively for Accounting, it is a great tool. I wanted to let students "create accoutning entries" on the IWB but the "up & down" of the students just became too disruptive. However tt is a great visual aid and I use it to note their questions/comments on Powerpoint Presentations and then publish the presentations on the class web page WITH THIER INPUT included. Now in Programming I have not found the boards to be as effective. I believe it is because Programming is workstation specific and each student can create a different solution to a problem where in accounting there is generally only 1 correct way to do something. Regardless, to paint IRBs with such a broad brush is a bit harsh. I am sure the same was said of overhead projectors on the 60's and computer presentations in the 80s. By the way....a couple of random thoughts...ALL technologies are simply bridges to the next one.....The word "teach" is a verb, meaning action.

BillGreat article. I posted this http://www.livinginthe4thscreen.com/smarter-technologies on my blog last week after reading about a school who was getting IWB. When I was technology coordinator at a school district we had three IWB's. We got rid of them 5 years ago. I agree with you that they anchor the teacher to the front of the room. This is a step backwards.

As a veteran educator of deaf and hard of hearing students, I must disagree that IWB's are a waste of funds and nothing more than expensive overhead projectors. Our student population is in constant need of more background/world knowledge, visual access to content, and representation of both languages they are working with - English print and American Sign Language.

Before IWB's came to our school, teachers would spend hours and hours of time outside of school hours, searching for pictures to copy, enlarge, and literally cut and paste with scissors and tape to create curriculum materials that would help our students visualize the content we were trying to teach them. We would find VHS videos about our subject and spend time cueing to the correct clip for use in class. We would have to videotape our students giving presentations on VHS tapes and then painstakingly spend time trying to cue up and help them revise/edit their presentations.

Now, with IWB's and digital technology, our teachers can use this state-of-the art technology to enhance their teaching and get so much more out of our deaf and hard of hearing students. Our students do video morning announcements that are broadcast throughout the school everyday - using the technology, we can very quickly have students make a video, edit it, and have it ready for broadcast each morning.

Teachers don't have to pour over magazines and books in the library to find good pictures to help students tap into or build their background knowledge about topics - we can go online with the IWB and pull up images and video clips with the click of a mouse.

Our students can create their own PowerPoint presentations, their own ASL video presentations, and be creative beyond what I could ever imagine before.

This technology has empowered our deaf and hard of hearing students, raised their reading levels, and increased their critical and creative thinking skills. It also has allowed our teachers, who are so incredibly dedicated, to not be prisoners of their own innovative planning & ideas - things can be created so much more quickly and efficiently now that we have all of this technology.

I do not feel that they have been a waste of precious funds at all - quite the contrary! I can't think of a better use of our technology funds!